From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
>> > One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
>> > interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
>> > convert to "undefined" and "null" (which is the default behavior in WebIDL,
>> > I believe). Â I feel somewhat strongly we should do the former. Â Especially
>> > since the latter would make it impossible to add additional parameters to
>> > .open() in the future.
>> I don't understand why it would make it impossible to add optional
>> parameters in the future. Wouldn't it be a matter of people writing
>>
>> indexeddb.open("mydatabase", "", SOME_OTHER_PARAM);
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> indexeddb.open("mydatabase", null, SOME_OTHER_PARAM);
>>
>> So "" is assumed to mean "don't update"? Â My assumption was that "" meant empty description.
>>
>> It seems silly to make someone replace the description with a space (or something like that) if theyÂ trulyÂ want to zero it out. Â And it seems silly to ever make your description be >> "null". Â So it seemed natural to make null and/or undefined be such a signal.
Given that open() is one of those functions that are likely to grow in parameters over time, I wonder if we should consider taking an object as the second argument with names/values(e.g. open("mydatabase", { description: "foo" }); ). That would allow us to keep the minimum specification small and easily add more parameters later without resulting un hard to read code that has a bunch of "undefined" in arguments. The only thing I'm not sure is if there is precedent of doing this in one of the standard APIs.
Thanks
-pablo